Talk:Robert D. Sack

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Robert David Sack was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Done.--TommyBoy (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Help

I am new to Wikipedia editing and have been asked to edit this page. Can anyone give me more guidance about how to fix the listed errors? Thank you. Dell7488 (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Dell7488 Whom asked you to do this? Are you employed by the Judge? 331dot (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am a librarian at the court. 199.107.16.121 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting. First, please make the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure(click for instructions) on your user page(User:Dell7478). Then, please read about how to make edit requests so you can do so on this page, to propose changes you feel are needed for other editors to review and, if acceptable, carry out. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've posted instructions about the disclosure on your user talk page as well. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It is okay for you to carry out the most minor changes to the article(such as fixing links or spelling) or to remove vandalism, but anything else should be proposed. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added the disclosure to my user page. How do you propose changes? How do I resolve the issue of "This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (October 2022)? How do I figure out which external links are the problem? Thank you! Dell7488 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the external links issue refers to the "Clerks" section, where almost all of the people listed have their name displayed as an external link. Really, unless any of those people have Wikipedia articles about them, the section should just be removed- or limited to those with articles. It shouldn't merely list anyone associated with the Judge who went on to better things.

You should read about edit requests here so you know how best to make them- in short, place {{edit COI}} below, followed by your request. Your request will be most likely to be reviewed if it is short, only proposing a change to say, a paragraph at most. Proposing a wholesale rewrite to most or all of the article in one swoop is unlikely to be reviewed as a volunteer editor is unlikely to want to invest the time in such a lengthy request. Short and sweet, being incremental, is best. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your insight and information, I really do appreciate it. Dell7488 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello again. May I ask how I might be able to correct the "This biographical article is written like a résumé" error that is coming up on this article? It seems to be written like most other judges' pages. Thanks! Dell7488 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct resume writing style

May I ask how I might be able to correct the "This biographical article is written like a résumé" error that is coming up on this article? It seems to be written like most other judges' pages. Thanks! Dell7488 (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If most judge's articles are like this, then most judge's articles need to be worked on. This just summarizes cases he wrote opinions for; mostly unsourced. An article should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about the judge. If independent sources write about his work on cases, or particular influence he had on cases, that's what is needed. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've edited the article removing all the sourced and non-noteworthy material. After that removal, I've taken out both maintenance templates because the article is now compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Because of your conflict, you should not edit the article directly. If you wish to change the article in any way, you should propose it here using the correct COI template.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Reinstate some sections and provide citations/sources

I would like to request that the edits reflected in my sandbox copy of this article be made. My sandbox is located here: User:Dell7488/sandbox - Wikipedia

In particular, I would like to add back the "Notable Opinions" section where I only included cases with their own Wikipedia pages. I also added outside sources about the cases which talk about Sack's influence on the case.

I would also like to add a section titled "Other activities, writings, and awards" which is a short section that details his work outside of the court. I've added secondary sources to this as well to back up verifiability.

Finally, I would like to request that the "Selected Publications" be reverted since these writings reflect and support his experience in certain law specialties discussed previously in the article.

I have also added a photo to the infobox.

Please let me know if I may go ahead and make these changes reflected in my sandbox. Dell7488 (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Under no circumstances can you go ahead and make these changes because you are a paid contributor and thus are not allowed to do so. Only uninvolved users may make changes to the article.

I am copying in Bbb23 who, if I understand correctly, recently removed an amount of material from the page which you are now looking to reinclude. It would be useful to have their input, especially re: the recently removed maintenance templates. Axad12 (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there - Would it be possible to get an update on this proposed revision? @Bbb23 @Axad12 Thank you! Dell7488 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

My take on this is that you asked for some maintenance templates to be removed, which were removed following the removal of some of the article text, and that you are now asking for some of that text to be re-implemented, presumably without the re-implementation of the maintenance tags. Is that basically correct?

Copying in user:Bbb23, who I suspect will have a better understanding than myself of the history here. Axad12 (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. In my sandbox draft, I have provided additional citations for the information I would like reinstated. For instance, in the "Notable Opinions" section, I removed all cases that did not have their own Wikipedia pages, and I added citations to each retained case with news articles about Sack's influence on the case/opinion. I also added citations to information contained in the "Other activities" section and tried to rewrite that section in a non-resume style. Thank you both for your help with this. Dell7488 (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I will defer to Bbb23 on whether or not your re-write is in a resume style.

Personally, it looks to me as though you are trying to reinsert material which would lead to the resume-like template needing to be re-applied, so I am reluctant to reinsert the revised text. Admittedly the re-write is better sourced, but it is still basically the same style and type of info as the material that Bbb23 previously removed as being in resume style, give or take.

To be honest, this edit request seems to me to be very ill advised and a waste of volunteer time. Axad12 (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, the page has very little information on it now. How would I rewrite this material then in a manner that would be acceptable? Dell7488 (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles here.

This started with you asking for the templates to be removed. The templates were removed due to some text being removed. You are now looking to reinclude material which differs only slightly (in general style) from the material that was previously removed at your request.

The only way for both the sourcing and resume-like templates to stay off the article is for the article to simultaneously be well sourced but not in a resume style.

This is an encyclopaedia article, not a resume listing all of the achievements of the subject. If that means that the article is short, then so be it. Axad12 (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Apologies but I'm shutting this request down as 'declined'. The requesting user has wasted a lot of volunteer time first of all asking for material to be removed (so that templates can be removed) and then asking for stylistically very similar material to be reinstated (but without the templates). This is obviously a fool's errand because it is impossible to have resume-like content without also having the resume-like template.

As per a volunteer response in an earlier thread, the removed material was 'non-noteworthy', so I can't see any prospect of it being reincluded in the article. Axad12 (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12: I think you're focussing too much on procedural issues rather than addressing the substance of what Dell7488 is proposing. I agree that Dell should not be the person who adds the material, but I think most of what they want added is acceptable, mostly well-sourced (what I removed was an unsourced nightmare), and, with some minor exceptions, well done stylistically.

The main thing I would not include is the "Selected Publications" section. It's not sourced, and some of it is already addressed in other parts of the article. Prose is generally better than lists.

Then there are some minor things: Sack should never be referred to as "Judge Sack" (Awards and honors section). The See also should not include List of Jewish American jurists as there's no mention of his ethnicity or religion in the article. The image in the infobox is too big. Not all section headings are in sentence case. With those qualifications I'd replace the current article with the sandbox or merge it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I was working on your comment above that you had edited the article removing all the sourced and non-noteworthy material. After that removal, I've taken out both maintenance templates because the article is now compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That comment was the reason that I felt that reinstating material without reimposing templates was a non-starter, as material that was both sourced and non-noteworthy was presumably not removed in relation to the BLP sourcing issue but in relation to the resume-like issue.

I had asked you several times (from Friday last onwards) to venture an opinion, but in the absence of that input I acted on what I felt to be the spirit of your comment quoted above. I don't really see how I could reasonably have done anything else or interpreted your words in any other way, especially since I was under the impression that you weren't going to return here to assist. Axad12 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Dell, I've edited your sandbox and then replaced the bulk of the article with your sandbox's content. If there are any more changes you wish, please make another edit request. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)